Orbit Group Limited (202016924)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016924

Orbit Group Limited

Issued 31 October 2023

Amended 23 November 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

This report has been amended from the original report issued on 31 October 2023 at the request of the landlords and with the agreement of this Service.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of defects and repairs.
2. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a new build house.
The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident has said that her husband was unwell and had been on long term sick leave from his employment.
Under the lease, the resident covenants, or agrees, to “repair and keep the premises in good and substantial repair and condition” and to pay service charges and rent.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that its responsibility for repairs will be set out within the resident’s tenancy agreement or lease. It also says that repairs can be reported by phone, email, face to face, in writing or via its website.
The landlord also has a defects and warranty policy which says that the landlord will manage the defects period for residents. It says it will carry out a seven-day courtesy visit after the resident moves in. The policy says “any issues that are identified at this visit must be signed off by the customer before the plot can be formally handed over to [the landlord], to fully manage the defect period. If no issues are raised the resident must be asked to sign to confirm this. The policy says that this visit must take place and handover of the defects period will not be accepted by the landlord if this has not been completed.
The policy then says that residents should report defects to the landlord, which it would then report to the defects contractor or make a claim under the property’s warranty insurance. Urgent repairs should be completed within seven days and non-urgent repairs within 28 days.
The property has a warranty under an insurance policy which started on 19 February 2018. Defects were insured for one year (referred to as the defects period in this report) and had an excess of £100 per item; other issues, such as structural or building control issues were insured for 12 years and had an excess of £1,000 per item.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by [the landlord], our own staff, or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual customer or group of customers.” The landlord has a two stage complaints process. The landlord will acknowledge stage one complaints within three working days and will respond within ten working days. If the resident is dissatisfied, they can ask to escalate their complaint to stage two. The landlord will acknowledge stage two complaints within three working days and will respond within 20 working days. The policy says that the landlord will not escalate to stage two if the request was received after 20 working days from the date of its stage one response “unless there are valid reasons why the issue was not raised sooner.”
Under the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code paragraph 5.9 states that a landlord must escalate a complaint to stage two if the resident remains dissatisfied and asks it to. It may decline the request if a ground to exclude the complaint exists, however, the grounds to exclude would have to be the same as the landlord’s grounds to exclude a stage one complaint under its policy.

Summary of events

The resident’s lease started on 1 April 2018 and on 25 June 2018 the resident emailed the landlord to report repairs defects within the property. These defects were to the bathroom door lock, sealant around the bath, kitchen flooring and parking space.
On 1 February 2019 the resident called the landlord to report her built in refrigerator was defective.
The resident called the landlord on 18 February 2019 and asked when the defects period was due to end, and the landlord told her this was on 21 February 2019.
On 24 July 2020 the resident called the landlord and asked for the kitchen cupboard dimensions, as she was considering getting more shelves for them.
Between 19 January 2021 and 27 January 2021, the resident and landlord exchanged emails about further repairs. In these emails:
1. The resident said she had the following defects:
  1. Low water pressure in the downstairs toilet since 2018.
  2. Bedroom door was not fitted properly.
  3. Kitchen cupboard doors were not fitted properly.
  4. Refrigerator seal had been fitted backwards.
  5. Cracking to walls.
  6. Having to slam the front door to close.
  7. Issues with sealant and rusted fittings in shower cubical in the bathroom.
2. The landlord said it was unable to raise these repairs as the property was no longer in the defects period and the resident was a shared owner. It advised her to contact the warranty insurance provider.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 February 2021 to make a stage one complaint. Her complaint was about:
1. The warranty insurer having an excess of £1,000 per issue and this being too high for her to pay.
2. That she had not received any paperwork from the landlord or the warranty insurer with the terms and conditions.
3. That the issues were down to the landlord’s builders.
The resident called the landlord on 4 March 2021 about her complaint. She also called the following day.
On 8 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge her complaint. It called her on 12 March 2021 to discuss the complaint.
The landlord called the resident again on 25 March 2021 and sent its stage one response to the resident on 26 March 2021. In its response it:
1. Provided a copy of the warranty insurance certificate.
2. Explained that the one-year defects period expired on 19 February 2019.
3. Said that the resident first reported the repairs in March 2021 which was outside of the defects period but was within the structural warranty period.
4. Said that it would not accept the repairs raised as defects that long after the defects period, and that these repairs would have presented themselves within two to six weeks of the resident having moved into the property.
5. Quoted the National Housing Federation website which said, “A shared ownership Leaseholder purchases the full leasehold title to their home…As the Leaseholder owns the full legal interest in their lease, they also take on full responsibility for the property and agree to pay for the full costs of repairs and maintenance.”
6. Suggested the resident approach her own tradesmen for quotes as these were likely to be much cheaper than claiming on the warranty.
7. Did not uphold the complaint and said that “if you are unsatisfied with this decision you can contact us within 20 days from the date of this letter and request that your case is reviewed.”
The resident emailed her MP on 27 March 2021 and again on 20 April 2021 to ask for his help with her complaint. In her second email she set out a chronology of events and said she had had numerous phone calls with the landlord which she could not evidence.
On 22 April 2021 the MP wrote to the landlord. In his letter he raised several issues on behalf of the resident. These issues included complaints about service charges, the landlord’s income collection process, grounds maintenance, and permission for a key safe, as well as her complaint about the repairs and not having been provided with the warranty insurance paperwork.
The landlord acknowledged the MP’s complaint on 28 April 2021 and replied on 5 May 2021. In its response in relation to the repairs it repeated its stage one response that these were reported after the end of the defects period. It said that it was the resident’s responsibility to report repairs within the defects period to the landlord and that this could be done 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It said the resident said she had not done this due to work commitments which it did not accept. It also quoted the National Housing Federation on shared owner’s responsibility for repairs. It also said a copy of the warranty insurance certificate would have been left at the property ready for when the resident moved in. The landlord said that if the MP was dissatisfied, he could contact it within 20 days to ask to escalate the complaint.
The resident contacted this Service for assistance. After finding out that the resident did not have a final complaint response, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 22 November 2021 to ask it to provide this.
The landlord provided its stage two response letter, by email, on 24 November 2021. In its response the landlord declined to escalate the complaint. It said that as the request to escalate was made more than 20 days after its stage one response, under its complaints policy it would not escalate the complaint. The landlord confirmed that this was its final response and provided information on how to contact this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied.
On 10 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord by webchat. She said she had not received a copy of the stage two response. The landlord checked and said that it had been sent to her by email and agreed to resend it to her.
The resident has told this Service that when she moved into the property her husband was very unwell and she spent a lot of time taking him to and from the hospital. She said that if she had known about the £1,000 excess on the warranty insurance, she would have carefully inspected the property earlier.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident has raised several complaint issues regarding service charges and income collection, and estate management via her MP. She has also brought these to the Ombudsman’s attention. However, from the evidence, these complaints have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and so under paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman may not considered these complaints. This investigation has therefore focused on the matters raised within the resident’s complaint which has completed the landlord’s process.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects and repairs.

The landlord’s records show that the resident reported defects to the landlord not long after she moved into the property in April 2018; she reported defects repairs on 25 June 2018 and 1 February 2019. On 18 February 2019 the resident called the landlord to ask when the defects period ended, and the landlord told her it was 21 February 2019.
The resident contacted the landlord in January 2021 to report the repairs which led to her complaint, however, in its complaint response the landlord said she reported them in March 2021 which was incorrect. From the evidence the resident appears to accept that this was the first time she raised these repairs as defects to the landlord.
In its stage one response on 26 March 2021 the landlord clearly explained that the defects period had ended on 19 February 2019 and so it could not accept the repairs reported as defects. Although this was a slightly different date to the one it had previously told the resident, just under two years had passed since that date and so it would ordinarily be reasonable for the landlord not to accept the repairs as defects in line with its policy.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out the initial seven-day visit as set out in its policy. The purpose of this visit was to check for any defects or issues with the property just after the resident moved in and before the landlord took full responsibility for the defects period. Had the landlord carried out this visit it is reasonable to believe that it would have identified any defects which were there at the time. It is likely the landlord would have recorded as defects:
1. Low water pressure in the downstairs toilet.
2. Bedroom door was not fitted properly.
3. Kitchen cupboard doors were not fitted properly.
4. Difficulty closing the front door.
5. Poor sealant around the bath.
6. The general poor-quality workmanship the resident complained about.
Following the visit, the landlord would have had the opportunity to raise the defects with the defects contractor or insurer within the defects period, which it should have done.
The resident has raised that she was not provided with a certificate or paperwork for the warranty insurance. The landlord said in its response to the MP’s complaint that this would have been left at the property ready for when she first moved in. From the evidence it is not possible for the Ombudsman to say whether the resident did or did not receive this when she moved in. However, the evidence also shows that the resident was aware of the defects period and how to report defects repairs.
The resident questioned the warranty insurer’s excess of £1,000 per item and said that this was not affordable. In its stage one response the landlord suggested the resident look for quotes from tradesmen as this would be cheaper than making a claim, which would have been solution focused, but for its failure to carry out the seven-day visit.
The landlord failed to follow its policy from the start by failing to carry out the seven-day visit. This meant it missed an opportunity to identify and repair the defects present at the time and later raised by the resident. It then failed to accept that it had not followed its policy; it should have accepted responsibility for the defects raised within the resident’s stage one complaint which would have been present at the time had it carried out the visit. This was maladministration which resulted in distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble for the resident. An order has been made that the landlord pay £400 in compensation to reflect this.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The resident first made a complaint on 22 February 2021 and specifically said she wanted to make a “formal complaint”. The resident called the landlord on 4 March 2021 and 5 March 2021, however, the landlord did not acknowledge her complaint until 8 March 2021. This was an unreasonable delay and outside of its policy timeframe of three working days. Within its letter it said the resident “wished to escalate” her complaint, which was incorrect and confusing as the resident had only raised a stage one complaint at that point.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 26 March 2023, which was 24 working days after the resident first made her complaint and that was an unreasonable delay. In its response the landlord did not fully answer the resident’s complaint about not having been given the warranty insurance paperwork, which it did in its response to the MP’s complaint, but it did provide a copy to her. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord treated the MP’s enquiry as a complaint and responded as such, which was a positive approach for it to have taken.
The landlord’s stage one response did say how to escalate the complaint and to do this within 20 days from the date of its letter. There followed some confusion after the resident contacted this Service as she believed she had completed the landlord’s complaints process when she had not. When the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord to ask for its final response on 22 November 2021, it decline to escalate the complaint as many more than 20 days had passed, which was in line with its policy.
However, under paragraph 5.9 of the Code, the landlord should have escalated and replied to the complaint at stage two. This is because the Code does not allow for a landlord to exclude a stage two complaint based on how long the resident took to request the escalation. A landlord may only decline to escalate a complaint if a reason to exclude a complaint at stage one under its policy arose before the complaint was escalated.
Due to the landlord’s delay in acknowledging the resident’s stage one complaint, delay in responding, and failure to escalate the complaint there was maladministration. An order has been made that the landlord pay £300 to reflect the inconvenience, time, and trouble this caused the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of defects and repairs.
2. Complaints handling.

Reasons

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of defects as it failed to carry out the seven-day visit to identify any defects under its policy. It then failed to accept this failure and should have accepted the defects raised by the resident which would have been present had it completed this visit.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling as it failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s stage one complaint within its policy timeframes. It also failed to escalate the complaint to stage two.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £700 made up of:
  1. £400 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its failings in handling the resident’s defects.
  2. £300 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the complaints handling failings.
3. Carry out repairs to rectify:
  1. Low water pressure in the downstairs toilet.
  2. Bedroom door was not fitted properly.
  3. Kitchen cupboard doors were not fitted properly.
  4. Difficulty closing the front door.
4. If the resident has paid a contractor, or an insurance excess, to have the above items repaired, the landlord is to reimburse the resident the costs of this. The resident must provide to the landlord an invoice, receipt, or other proof of payment.
5. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.